From the Centers for Disease Control, advice about what to do when Marc Morano comes calling.
The rise of zombies in pop culture has given credence to the idea that a zombie apocalypse could happen. In such a scenario zombies would take over entire countries, roaming city streets eating anything living that got in their way. The proliferation of this idea has led many people to wonder “How do I prepare for a zombie apocalypse?”
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.
Well, what with Fall, et al., and so forth, Eli set about looking up his words of wisdom, and wadda you know, the Bunny did a good job four years ago
Sampling bias is indeed the issue. Pielke's experimental design is clear evidence of card forcing or ignorance. However, let us get beyond that. There is some possibility that over years all of the sites in the US (maybe even including Alaska) will be photographed. Some of these photo's exist, however, as single photos they are useless, because what is measured are changes in average temperature, anomalies, not absolute temperatures, so what is needed is an historical archive of photos, e.g. a continuing series that shows changes at the sites.Oh, and there was something about that engineering level stuff
OTOH, Tom Karl's project seeks to bootstrap information about past and future measurements at a large number of sites by setting up a small, optimal network which can be used as a yardstick to check the larger USHCN and the US CO-OP networks. By implication this is then a check on the Global Networks, AND on the various corrections that have been applied to the raw data.
The bit about engineers always keeping their data available is a sad joke to anyone who has ever had to fix an old piece of equipment that has been orphaned. Get off it.But more interesting is a quote from the body of the post
Now Ho Chi Pielke Sr. is providing reinforcements by getting his irregulars to go out there and take pictures of stations in the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN). Anthony Watts is setting up a web site for such pictures. The goal, of course is to falsify GISSTEMPThe links to Roger Sr.'s old web site are dead, but it is pretty clear what the goal of the Surface Stations Project were, and who started the ball rolling, moreover the original statement of purpose was (from a comment at RR)
Here's the real goal of the project (that Peilke has apparently put his seal of approval on, even if unintentionally)
"If you have a digital camera, a portable handheld GPS device with accuracy within 100 feet or better, and the ability to follow simple instructions, you can help us demonstrate that many of the assumptions about climate change based on the surface temperature record may in fact be due to faulty data!"
If you know anything at all about measuring temperature, you'll see that these sites above don't meet the basic criteria for scientifically valid observations. Yet, the data from these weather stations is part of the USHCN data set and is used by NASA to model climate, the IPCC to publish reports, and your government to make policy decisions.
Ste
ve Bloom put it well;
Well, guess we have. Time to pay up Tony. Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, Eli will accept a dinner.So little time, so many baseless assumptions:
1) Eli's point is that your material is basically self-cancelling within its own terms. If he were using it for any other purpose, you might have an argument. As it is, you don't.
[MODERATOR NOTE - on #1 I get what he's trying to say, but we'll see when its all tallied. So far there does not appear to be a balance as has been suggested.]
The point is thatNow Eli is not one to gloat, but simply wishes to point to a paper under discussion
a. There are both negative and positive biases at the various USHCN network stations
b. Eli can find a lot more stations with negative biases in the surface station picture gallery.
c. The net effect will be to broaden the distribution, but not change the means (by anything meaningful).
d. That's what you get when you are too cheap to run your own system.
Unnoticed by the reality based community, Marc Morano has declared war on Newt Gingrich for apostasy or whatever. Climate Depot has been all Gingrich all the time for most of last week and Morano has even been able to mainstream this over at Fox News
Gingrich Feels the Heat for Appearing in Global Warming Ad With Pelosi
By Judson BergerThis appears to have started about May 10, but Morano has a history of taking runs at Gingrich, using the same ad that the Newtster made with Speaker Pelosi.Every presidential candidate is going to come into the 2012 race with baggage. But Newt GingrichNancy Pelosi for Al Gore's climate change group. has what, for primary voters, could be a doozy in his closet -- three years ago, he cut an ad with
The ad, in which Gingrich and Pelosi don awkward smiles while talking about clean-energy solutions, is coming back to haunt him, along with other statements he's made about climate change, as he officially launches his presidential bid. While Democrats have a long and winding list of grievances against the former House speaker, his past environmentalism could cause problems on the political right.
The early complaints are coming in large part from a former aide to Congress' No.1 climate change skeptic, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. The ex-aide, Marc Morano, has virtually devoted his blog ClimateDepot to lambasting Gingrich's stance on energy issues.
Available from ThinkGeek: Arsenic-based sea monkeys! Last December, a report surfaced (HA! HA!) of a microbe in Mono Lake, California, that could replace the phosphorus in its DNA with arsenic. The report did not win universal acceptance. (HA!) Now ThinkGeek makes available seamonkeys who incorporate arsenic into their DNA. It's an unusual item, which ThinkGeek has been selling since [HINT!] April 1, 2011. The description in ThinkGeek comes with consumer warnings: Please be careful. Although they may look cute, sea monkeys have been known to become very violent.
But what, you may ask, does this have to do with climate change? If anything?!
Gentle readers of Rabbet Run (are there any other kind of readers of RR?) are aware of the controversy about Freeman Dyson, mathematical physicist at Princeton, who proposed genetically engineering a "supertree" which can sequester an incredible amount of carbon. By merely planting enough supertrees, the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be reversed, and global warming averted.
Is there any evidence that such a hypothetical tree could be genetically engineered? Of course not. Are such supertrees any more plausible than arsenic-based sea monkeys? No. So what is Freeman Dyson actually doing?
Making a monkey of himself!
Remember bunnies when Eli, Skeptical Science, Jason Box, and Lucia were discussing how Frauenfelder, Knappenberg and Michaels were hiding the incline? Well it gets better. EveryRabett who looks at Figure 2
would say hmm, don't look like there is that much more melting going on at the end of the record than in ~ 1930, but Every Rabett would be very wrong. Take a closer look at the right end of the figure.
Now look at the legend, notice that the red line is a ten year trailing average. Now, some, not Eli to be sure, might conjecture, and this is only a conjecture, that while using a trailing average is a wonderfully fine thing if Some Bunny, not Chip Knappenberger to be sure, is looking at smoothing the data in the interior of the record, but, of course, Chip understands that if you are comparing the end of the data record to the middle, this, well, underweighs the end. The rising incline of the trailing average at the end is depressed with respect to the data. Some Bunny, of course, could change to a five year moving average, which would make the last point not the average of the melt between 1999 and 2009 but the average between 2003 and 2009, a significantly larger average melt. Of course, this effect would be even clearer if someone, not Eli to be sure, knew that the melt in 2010 was a record.
Eli eagerly awaits much fussing and fulminating from the unusual suspects about how dishonest it is to hide the incline. And convenient
Eli's pals, Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger and Ollie Frauenfeld, although not necessarily in that order, and Eli would not bet his bottom carrot on their being friends, although he might sip a beer with Chip, have a new paper "A reconstruction of annual Greenland ice melt extent 1784-2009" J. Geophys Res Atm 116 doi something long (2011) in which they reconstruct the history of the Greenland ice melt.
Now, some, not Eli to be sure, might think that this is a platform for deviltry soon to appear in World Climate Report the house organ of Pat Michaels astroscience empire, or perhaps an erasure or two, or something being not under the shell in a game of three iceberg Monte, but, give credit where due, this starts with a useful reconstruction of the annual Greenland ice melt.
to which one of the spurned referees, Jason Box, took considerable exception, enough that he blogged his review, and, of course the usual suspects engaged in ritual pearl clutching, and even more of course the suspects did not mention Box's reasons (there really was only one)
I rank the paper: “Good” because the paper’s methods seem solid. Yet, depth with regard to examining causal factors is missing. Further, the paper’s main point, as it seems, that recent warming is not without precedent, may already be obsolete because 2010 was such an extreme melt year AND that more warming in Greenland is likely simply for Greenland to be in sync with the northern hemisphere. The paper thus, in the very least, requires a revision that includes consideration of 2010 data. Yet, consideration of causal factors of cooling and warming and treatment of the Box et al. (2009) prediction, which for 2008-2010 has been accurate, would give the paper the depth consistent with JGR’s standard.In other words FKM hid the incline, something AnyBunny, or if you prefer the more traditional, EveryBunny, can see. (Readers get their choice of eminem or death, which some would say is not a choice, but Eli would never rickroll his adoring readers) And, it is a twofer, because not only is there observational evidence that the incline is increasing at an ever faster rate, but, as Box shows in a follow up (there is another but it is denser), the number of degree days is increasing
Comparing the two graphs, it is clear that FKM are up to little good. As a matter of fact, the incline is currently increasing strongly in the degree day chart, emphasizing Box's point that FKM were, let us say, being economical when they sayWe make use of these relationships along with historical temperature and circulation observations to develop a near‐continuous 226 year reconstructed history of annual Greenland melt extent dating from 2009 back into the late eighteenth century. We find that the recent period of high‐melt extent is similar in magnitude but, thus far, shorter in duration, than a period of high melt lasting from the early 1920s through the early 1960s. The greatest melt extent over the last 2 1/4 centuries occurred in 2007; however, this value is not statistically significantly different from the reconstructed melt extent during 20 other melt seasons, primarily during 1923–1961.Still, gotting this into print provides a platform for Pat to hide the incline at his usual haunts and for Lucia to cluck approvingly
There is/was an interesting discussion paper at Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Black carbon in the atmosphere and snow, from pre-industrial times until present by R. B. Skeie, T. Berntsen, G. Myhre, C. A. Pedersen, J. Ström, S. Gerland, and J. A. Ogren, Its pretty much been tossed back for light revision, but is still available to read. The authors have modeled black carbon emissions and deposition on snow since 1750. There is great current interest in this, not only because of the direct climate forcing from black carbon, but also because black carbon deposited on snow or ice increases the absorption of sunlight and leads to faster melting. 
While the modeling is approximate at best, and the observations even sketchier, the authors point to two obvious but interesting things. First, since 1960 burning of fossil fuels in the northern hemisphere has gotten a lot cleaner. North American BC emissions from fossil fuels and biofuels decreased by a factor of three between 1920 and 2000 and European emissions by a factor of two. Moreover, agricultural burning has decreased and forest fires are better controlled. Second, with the shift of industry to South and Southeastern Asia BC emissions and deposition have shifted towards the equator, meaning that less is deposited in the Arctic and that the contribution to ice melt is stable or decreasing. Taking one thing with another the paper asserts that the maximum for black carbon in the Arctic ice and snow was 1960.According to the model, North American sources were responsible for approximately 80% of the BC deposited in Greenland snow in 1930. In year 2000 the contribution of BC deposited in 20 the snow has decreased to approximately 60% due to the
The radiative forcing of BC impact on snow and ice maximizes in 1960, but only less than 20% higher than the RF in 1910. . . . In 1950 maximum values are found in the European and Russian sector of the Arctic Ocean and a secondary maximum is simulated over Europe. In 2000 the RF in the Arctic is reduced and the maximum over Europe is substantially reduced. Maximum values for year 2000 are found in the Himalayan region and the Tibetan plateau. . .
We find that the time evolution of the snow albedo effect is almost flat, with no significant increase in this forcing since early 20th century. Modelled BC burden in snow and ice and BC burden in the atmosphere north of 65 N reached its maximum in 1960, with a slight reduction thereafter. This indicates that the trend in the snow albedo effect has not been an important cause for the recent rapid warming in the Arctic.
Yet, rejoice not too fast young bunnies, the shift in BC emissions to the south, has increased the forcing per unit emission by a quarter because of the aerosols can absorb more light in the tropics and be transported higher where there is more sunlight.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal continues to sneer at global warming. Its most recent editorial outburst, "Global Warming's Awful Fortune Tellers", largely cribbed from an April 13 editorial ("The Climate Refugee Hoax") in Investors Business Daily, claims that a 2005 article in the Guardian predicted 50 million refugees from rising sea levels by 2010.
If the Guardian had actually said that, it would be premature (or prescient). But the actual 2005 article in the Guardian included rising sea levels, desertification, and shrinking freshwater supplies, not just rising sea levels. This makes it at least debatable whether or not there are currently 50 million refugees from environmental causes.
The Review-Journal, again cribbing from Investors Business Daily, quotes a Swedish researcher, Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University, who proclaimed that there has been no rise in sea level in the 35 years that he has been studying the topic.
The R-J editorial writers ought to take a look at the data (see above right).
The guru, Dr. Morner, has a serious problem with the scientific method. He is a believer in dousing, finding water using a dowsing rod. This topic is closely related to witchcraft. The International Union for Quaternary Research has publicly disavowed Morner's research. (The Quaternary period is the last two million years of Earth's history). It makes sense that the sea level would rise: the Greenland ice sheet is melting and the sea is warming up. Both contribute to the sea level rise, currently estimated at 3 mm/year by satellite measurements.
There are all sorts of skeptics out there. For example, consider the Danish researcher
Uffe Ravnskov, who wrote a book, "Cholesterol Myths", claiming that cholesterol and other saturated fat has no effect on heart disease. There are enough "cholesterol skeptics" that they formed their own rejectionist organization, the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics. When I first discovered Ravnskov, I emailed a relative with an M. D., asking "is this guy nuts?". The reply was "yes".
Which pretty well sums up Dr. Ravnskov, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Much popcorn is being consumed across the land as birther heads explode with the release of Obama's "long form" birth certificate. Lucia thought she was being cute by posting a copy, but ran into Kim, her house all arounder who is entertaining the masses. Matt Honan at Mother Jones made a flow chart so everyone can understand the game, and Eli made a few changes, very few changes, which tells this bunny that rejectionism is the same no matter what the subject, climate change, evolution, vaccines, birthers, tobacco and more.
with additions and deletions by Rabett Labs
Curious he said, but this Nathan Cummings Foundation that fronted the $$ to Matt Nisbet, why they are the dollars behind the Breakthrough bunch, which funnily enough has this Sr. Fellow, with whom Ethon assumes you, Eli, are well acquainted. It's a strange thing Ethon pointed out, but the author picked the reviewers and paid them the proverbial pittance to do something, though it is not clear what, because one of them jumped ship, and on the way out mentioned that he was only shown a small part of the report. And you know what, this is not something submitted to a journal for publication, but a report for some faculty guys with a web site of which the fellow who took the payments is the director. Makes you think of an S. Fred Special, you know the environmental tobacco smoke is good for you if, as Fred did, you use the wrong statistic, or maybe that NIPCC report that the old boy wrote for a 100K or so. Seems to be the going price this decade.
Anyhow, Ethon was a very hungry bird and he took the bait. Read the thing, and he pointed out something very interesting, not that interesting things had not been pointed out, and oh, did that make the usual suspects berry, berry cross, but this is supposedly a report on who spent what for influencing public opinion, and in that there are three things to look at: lobbying, advertising and political contributions.
On political contributions
A clear financial advantage still held by the conservative movement and industry allies exists in the arena of election spending, as a recent analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics indicates. In 2010, following the Citizens United court ruling, conservative and allied industry organizations engaged in unprecedented independent campaign spending. The Chamber of Commerce ($33 million), American Crossroads ($22 million) and Crossroads GPS ($17 million) combined for $73 million in independent expenditures. In comparison, the League of Conservation Voters ($5.5 million), Defenders of Wildlife ($1 million) and the Sierra Club ($700,000) combined to spend $7.2 million.and you know, even the good Matt proves that money talks in politics, because there was one case where the shoe was on the other foot
In total, supporters of the proposition raised approximately $10.6 million. In comparison, the “No on Proposition 23” coalition raised at least $25 million, resulting in a more-than 2-to-1 financial advantage over their opponents.which enabled the opponents of the proposition to run more ads, contact more people, etc. So on political contributions, advantage climate change rejectionists
the Alliance (for Climate Progress) spent $34 million on advertising, short of the widely publicized $100 million-a-year goal.53 Similarly, by the end of 2009, the Alliance had signed up 2.5 million “members” to receive news and alerts, short of the 10 million target.54 In terms of advertising by other environmental organizations, according to their 2009 tax records, EDF spent $9.6 million; NRDC, $2.3 million; and Sierra Club, $1.8 million. In all, the Alliance and these groups spent $47.7 million on advertising. . . .but, of course, not all of the environmental groups' advertising was on the Cap and Trade bill either. IOKIYAACCR. And, of course, the oil and coal companies had their own advertising,In comparison, according to their respective tax returns, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $71 million on advertising in 2009, the American Petroleum Institute spent $57 million, the American Coalition for Clean Coal spent $31 million, the National Association of Manufacturers spent $4.5 million, and the Heritage Foundation spent $3.7 million, for a combined total of $167 million. Not all of this ad spending was on climate change. For example, as discussed earlier, much of the spending by the U.S. Chamber was aimed at health care legislation.
Image advertising by the major oil companies is also relevant, as this advertising may influence the perceived need among lawmakers and the public for cap and trade legislation, even if the ads did not directly address the debate, and even as some of the companies supported the bills. . . .So on advertising, advantage climate change rejectionists
Figures on advertising spending by oil companies in 2009 are not available, but an analysis by the firm Kantar Media CMAG for the Alliance for Climate Protection provides some insight on the scale of spending by these companies. During the first 10 months of 2010, Exxon Mobil spent $29 million, Shell spent $9.7 million and Chevron spent $7.2 million. In responding to the oil spill, BP spent $126 million.
With the exception of the figures for the environmental groups, this comparison of lobbying expenditures across coalitions should not be interpreted as reflecting the actual amounts spent on cap and trade legislation. Instead, in the aggregate, these totals are representative of the capacity for power and influence that each side could apply in 2009.But he then trawls into the pro cap and trade lobbying totals the total lobbying for all of the companies who were members of the US Climate Action Partnership. Somehow, the author forgot to include the total lobbying budgets for all of the members of the American Petroleum Institute or the US Chamber of Commerce on the other side. Unfortunate yet EVEN with that lack of manipulation**,
Through their work building coalitions and alliances, the environmental groups were able to forge a network of organizations that spent a combined $229 million on lobbying across all issues. In comparison, the network of prominent opponents of cap and trade legislation spent $272 million lobbying across all issues.In spite of putting his big toe on the scale, in all three rubber meets the road categories, political contributions, advertising and lobbying the climate change rejectionists had significantly more resources (and if you think 43M$ is not a lot, Eli would like to talk with you about buying carrot and bird seed futures).
Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor of the
The Republican self-deception that draws the most attention is the refusal to believe that Barack Obama is American-born.But there are Republican doctrinal fantasies that may be more dangerous: the conviction that taxes can always go down, but never up, for example, and the gathering consensus among Republican leaders that human-caused climate change does not exist.
I’m not saying that Democrats’ answers to the budget or climate challenges are necessarily right. You can make a case for smaller government or argue that there’s no point in America curbing greenhouse gases if China won’t.
But it’s hard to debate blind faith. . .The closer is even tougher, talking about one of the Republican would be candidates, but really talking about all of them
Climate science is complex, and much remains to be learned. But if you asked 1,000 scientists, 998 of them would say that climate change is real and that human activity — the burning of oil, gas and coal — is a significant contributor. But Pawlenty’s supposed uncertainty is convenient, because if we don’t know the cause, then there’s little point in looking for a cure. And any cure is going to cost money, or votes, or both.
To say that Republican irresponsibility makes it more difficult for Democrats to speak honestly is not an excuse. But it is a partial explanation. And while Obama may wish the climate change conversation would go away between now and 2012, he at least is not pretending the phenomenon is fiction.
and in the Joe Romm memorial last paragraph Hiatt asks
Which leads to another question: Should we feel better if a possible future president is not ignorant about the preeminent environmental danger facing our planet, but only calculating or cowardly?Things are not always what Randy Olson thinks they are.
Bart plays Newton propounding the Harry Potter theory of boating
and sharper becomes EinsteinConsider a boat at sea. It has both a sail (being dependent on the wind – i.e. natural variation) and an engine (i.e. radiative forcing).
The skipper puts the engine on full blast and steers the boat from, say, Holland to England.
Would anyone wonder whether it’s just the wind that’s pushing the boat over the Canal?
That would be the Harry Potter theory of boating.
this is a thread so good that even Roddy Campbell has the bunnies ROTFLOAOWould anyone wonder whether it’s just the wind that’s pushing the boat over the Canal?
Ahh but what speed is it going at? How good is the data? What are the uncertainty bars? What about the drag from movement through the water? Can models reproduce that? How good or how fraudulent are they?
What about the radiation pressure exerted by the sun and cosmic rays? Were they measured in that location at that time? How good is that data? What’s the uncertainty? Where can I download the last 20 years worth in Excel format?
This is obviously a very wicked problem to solve. There are so many factors and so many complexities that it doesn’t seem like we can say with certainty there’s even enough speed to need your “catastrophic anthropogenic acceleration theory”.
Besides how you attribute a cause to speed anyway? The motion of the boat at any particular instant might be purely natural so you can’t say there was any non-natural acceleration overall.
Plus boats have always been accelerating long before there were engines. The Romans got around just fine!
And that’s why I don’t have to pay my share of the fuel cost to get us here. You can’t prove it got us here.
Rick Piltz has a post on Climate Science Watch about a letter to UVA from the American Association of University Professors, the Virginia ACLU, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a bunch of others, including Rick. Judy Curry is tsking about Tim Ball being sued by Michael Mann, and the subject came up, came up, came up. . . featuring a request from Greenpeace for Pat Michaels correspondence and various requests for the letters of Michael Mann (he should auction them on Ebay).
For filling out the check, you get their word that they will look at all the Emails they have to or from Pat Michaels, Michael Mann or your faculty member of the month. Of course, they have an interesting couple of paragraphs in the Virginia Freedom of Information Act to rely on
In any case where a public body determines in advance that charges for producing the requested records are likely to exceed $200, the public body may, before continuing to process the request, require the requester to agree to payment of a deposit not to exceed the amount of the advance determination. The deposit shall be credited toward the final cost of supplying the requested records.and even if they find something, there is lots that they do not have to turn over, including everything associated with research
The following records are excluded from the provisions of this chapter but may be disclosed by the custodian in his discretion, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law: . . . .
4. Data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of public institutions of higher education, other than the institutions’ financial or administrative records, in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issues, whether sponsored by the institution alone or in conjunction with a governmental body or a private concern, where such data, records or information has not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented.
and any information related to grants (which are business operations)
5. All records of the University of Virginia or the University of Virginia Medical Center or Eastern Virginia Medical School, as the case may be, that contain proprietary, business-related information pertaining to the operations of the University of Virginia Medical Center or Eastern Virginia Medical School, as the case may be, including business development or marketing strategies and activities with existing or future joint venturers, partners, or other parties with whom the University of Virginia Medical Center or Eastern Virginia Medical School, as the case may be, has formed, or forms, any arrangement for the delivery of health care, if disclosure of such information would be harmful to the competitive position of the Medical Center or Eastern Virginia Medical School, as the case may be.UVa's timeline is full of splendid deadpan
Kert Davies and James Trowbridge, Greenpeace, Washington, D.C., request a list of grants and all correspondence from or to Patrick Michaels and S. Fred Singer on global climate change and a wide range of subjects.and on the other side
U.Va. responds to Greenpeace request and estimates the costs to provide these records would be at least $3,500.
Greenpeace narrows its request and suggests U.Va. provide "unfiltered" emails.
U.Va. responds to Greenpeace request with detailed explanation of costs, attaches requested Michaels CV and list of grants. U.Va. also responds that "unfiltered" e-mails could contain information exempt from disclosure under state or federal law.
Christopher C. Horner, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., requests extensive records concerning U.Va.'s FOIA procedures;
After confirming his Virginia residency, the University responds to Horners request and estimates that a substantive response to his request would take a lot of time and estimates the cost for these records would be at least $35,000.UVa's letter contains this treasure
We note that CEI’s request for documents from professor Keene expressly includes “e-mail” while CEI’s request for documents from professors Galloway and Wiberg does not. We presume this is a typographical error and our estimate in this letter includes a search for responsive and non-exempt e-mail of professors Galloway and Wiberg. Please let us know, however, if CEI’s omission of “e-mail” from these two requests was intentional.The UVa legal office may be enjoying this.
For your information, the most effective means to reduce costs generally is to reduce the number of University custodians from whom you seek records. The next most helpful cost-reduction method is the reduction or elimination of more generic key-word criteria.
Sometimes the press office puts out a good release,
Natural gas is mostly methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas, especially in the short term, with 105 times more warming impact, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide (CO2), Howarth said, adding that even small leaks make a big difference. He estimated that as much as 8 percent of the methane in shale gas leaks into the air during the lifetime of a hydraulic shale gas well -- up to twice what escapes from conventional gas production. . . .and then the churnalists get to it. On the other side of the sausage grinder here is a lovely example of the perversity argument from Eve Troeh on Marketplace (NPR)He noted that the hydraulic fracturing process lends itself to more leakage because it takes more time to drill the well, requires more venting and produces more flowback waste, he said.
"A lot of the data we used are really low quality, but I'm confident they are the best available," Howarth said. "We want to go out into the Marcellus Shale and do micrometeorological fluxes of methane at the time of venting and get a real number on this, which has never been done. We're optimistic we can get funding and do that over the next year."
"We've tried to be conservative all along; we're not trying to be hyperbolic in our statements," Ingraffea said.
"We do not intend for you to accept what we've reported on today as the definitive scientific study in regards to this question. It's clearly not," he added. "What we're hoping to do with this study is to stimulate the science that should have been done before. In my opinion, corporate business plans superseded national energy strategy."
On TV, natural gas gets sold as pristine energy.And, of course, not to be caught in the rush, Friend Kloor jumps in at his new day jobRobert Howarth: But that of course is only part of the greenhouse gas footprint.
Cornell University professor Robert Howarth. His new study is the first to quantify the whole carbon footprint for natural gas. He found it's more Bigfoot than Bambi. Because when you crack shale to get to the clean-burning fuel, out comes "methane" -- another greenhouse gas. He says that's worse than burning coal.
Maybe, but that natural gas bridge might not be as sturdy as previously thought, according to a Cornell University study in the upcoming May issue of Climatic Change Letters. Cornell ecologist Robert Howarth, a lead author of the study, says in a university release that methane ( a potent global warming gas) leakage from a controversial drilling method (known as fracking) offsets the lesser carbon emissions that makes makes natural gas more attractive in comparison other fossil fuels:You know, who would have guessed that natural gas is mostly methane. Eli told the bunnies that you just have to taste the blather to spot the rejectionists. Time for the Coven to call another blogger ethics panel.
Eli would add a fourth horseman to the rhetoric of rejection, beyond perversity, futility, and jeopardy: hypocrisy
but Eli has a slightly different take (maybe because Eli is older)All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to fear hypocrisy
. . . .We're no angels, and hypocrisy is a good argument to make if we claim to be angels, but it's not an argument for inaction.I often see its counterpart argument, btw: someone says they should be allowed to do something wrong because other people have done something wrong previously. Land developers make this argument constantly, "people ten years ago built their homes right into the streamside habitat, therefore I should be able to as well." No.
No free riders. Which means we act together or not at all
The key to all these problems is that people are willing to stand a considerable amount of sacrifice, but only if they see that everyone is sharing the same. So Eli
1. is willing to share a considerable amount of sacrifice but
2. is unwilling to do it if others don’t.This is a fairly general rule . . .
A good example of this is bottle return laws or plastic bag laws. People have no problem with them and they benefit the community, but only a few will bring their own bags or return bottles without some sort of regulation.The nastiest version is folks who don't give a damn about anyone else, especially anyone else in a poor country, especially a poor African country, berating anyone who wants to take action against climate change for wanting to hurt the poor Africans. See also perversity, futility and jeopardy. That one is a real keeper.
.
Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy
About 20 years ago Albert Hirschman wrote a small, but since well known, book "The Rhetoric of Reaction" about how conservatives think and argue. The bunnies will discover that this perfectly describes how are blogging compatriots and politicians reject science. Hirschman's concern was that democracy requires opposing views, but also interchange among those holding those views. "How did they get to be that way?" is a sure sign that an honest dialogue has vanished.
The Rhetoric of Reaction is structured about rejection of progress in politics, progress in the sense of a widening citizenship and active participation, particularly in the American and French Revolution and the development of democratic nation states since. While political progress is arbitrary the increased understanding provided by science is definitionally progress unless there are some fans of ignorance out there. Thus, it is not surprising that Hirschman's taxonomy fits the arguments made by those who reject science, specifically climate science, modern biology, modern medicine and more.
The bunnies can look forward to examples, indeed, Eli would encourage them to provide their own, but here he only wants to paraphrase Hirschman's theses
Posts
All Comments
